What is Your Worldview?

I really, have no time anymore, but I'll certainly try to clarify.I believe our life is di- or trichotomous. I'll try to describe it as best I can. There is physical life, soul life, and spiritual life. Physical life is the consciousness produced by synapses and neurons. Soul life is the metaphysical consciousness and "baggage" that we carry with us after death. Spiritual life is the spirit of God created in us when we come to know Him.Now I'm sure many would say that the physical life which is produced by the brain matter is the only life we have and our person or self is solely contained in the chemical reactions in our brains. But our physical life has the ability to recognize aspects of the spiritual world that are manifested in qualities such as good and evil, love and hate, truth and falsehood, etc...To me, it no longer matters how these abstract aspects of our life have become so foundational and resounding within us. The fact is they are real, and because I believe in God as the cause of all reality, I believe these things manifested themselves in us for a reason. There is a deeper dimension to life beyond the physical. I think the physical world is embedded in the spiritual world, but the struggle going on in the spiritual world usually only manifests itself for us to see in the hearts and minds of men. Why the struggle? I don't know... Adventure, contrast, illustration of the character of God, and it seems like everything really satisfying in life comes after great struggles and contrasts in life. Without tyrrany we take freedom for granted. Without war we take peace for granted. Without poverty we take prosperity for granted. Without snobbery we take benevolence for granted. Without separation from God we take union with God for granted. I believe we are spiritual beings in that there is unseen unfelt unique individual life in us beyond the neurons in our brains that is struggling to be free from this life and come into the peace and presence of God.Contrary to your views of single universal consciousness that we sort of merge back into after death, I believe that we remain unique individuals after death, but with the boundaries between us and God removed (for those who want to know him).I believe the path a person's spirit takes is not entirely dependent on a person's physical mind. In other words, I don't think our choices are purely determined by physical factors, but I do think they are influenced by them. Many times people completely change their lives and spiritual attitudes without any physical change.For example: part of my body may try to tell me to do the wrong thing and my mind might tell it to do another. One choice may be good and the other bad. It is the Spirit God has put in me that is in control if I choose good.Or an example of a different sort: I might get alzheimers as I grow old and lose my ability to make decisions and function. Just because my physical life is deteriorating does not mean my spirit has been destroyed. On the contrary, when I die, my spirit will be free from the prison of the corrupted flesh.By struggling against temptation and by gaining victories in truth and goodness, God grows our spirit within our hearts. Our flesh is corrupt in that it influences us to be selfish, to do wrong, and it is only sensing of the physical world. It also has limitations. Our heart, the focus of our mind, is sensing of the spiritual world. If we choose to know and love God, and do what is right, God's spirit is within us growing our spirit.God knows how we are bounded by our physical bodies and so he sent Christ to demonstrate his love and forgivness so that we may have new life unseparated from His Spirit. God knows our limitations and we can expect him to be fair in judging us. Even if a person never gets to choose to know him, God gives him His spirit by default. Only those who reject God, will not have God's spirit living in them when they die. How can God's Spirit live in what hates Him? God cannot hate himself.well I've rambled on enough.. and I'm dead tired. Hope I've made myself somewhat clear... as we've discussed before, words fail in trying to describe such things. I suppose they must be felt with the heart.

Heh... I guess, if there is no God, religion is an illusion to create a purpose for living the fleeting illusion of life. However, if there is a God, both life and belief are as real as can be.

Ifen,You misunderstood what I meant about 9-11. Before then, I had the same sort of irritated tolerance for fundie belief that I have for smokers. However, the fact of the matter is that irrational religious belief was the major motivation for those maniacal hijackers, and religious leaders have since been scrambling to distance themselves from that sort of belief to no avail. Our own Hangdawg here accompanies his bizarre philosophical rantings with an avatar whose theme of an airborne religious threat is eerily reminiscent of the heinous 9-11 terrorism. It's no surprise that he has taken it upon himself to condemn people like me for atheist, anti-militarist, pro-choice views. He warns us that we'll all get what we deserve from his vengeful God. So what's the difference?regards,
Esteban Hambre

How come it took you till 9/11/01 to get there?Growing up in the UK during the 70's was enough for me,
and I only got the fallout of 'the troubles' in Northern
Ireland.Sorry -- just read the exactly preceding post to mine.This message has been edited by Peter, 09-01-2004 08:38 AM

Religion was created with the express purpose of controlling
the uneducated masses, and fleecing them of their hard-earned
bread.

Extremism of any kind is unhealthy. Personally, I never "planned" on becoming religious...nor do I see myself as necessarily "religious" even now. I do have a definite theologically based World View although I distance myself from the fundamentalist mentalities within the church. They hate homosexuality with an extreme moral stance based on the Bible, for example. While I see homosexual actions as sinful, they are no more sinful than lusting after women or even gossip and slander! We all have hangups! Many Christians also preach salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone, yet expect each other to conform to some lofty standard which occasionally feels phoney and arrogant. While I have no beef with atheism in general, I get irritated when someone tries to intellectually checkmate my intelligence. I became a believer through being a witness to an intense series of personal transforming experiences. Once a person experiences some things, they cannot explain the event away. Still, I try to be nice and not throw sand while we all joust about in this big sandbox of philosophy and theology. BTW concerning Hangdawgs "philosophical ramblings", I can say that he is theologically sound as a Christian Apologist...well, at least 75% sound. He is a lot more accurate than many that we have had on this board! BTW, his avatar looks like a bit of "Christian Patriotism" to me..not terrorism. It is good to see that in this country, people are allowed to express the differing worldviews that they have! Keep on thinking and using that mind of yours, Esteban! Or shall I say, Esteban, "Disneyland" Hambre? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-01-2004 09:09 AM

Hangdawg,Or if there is a God perhaps that is the only reality and life and belief are as illusory as can be?!Thanks for your replies. You've started back to school?lfen

MrHambre,I had misunderstood. Sometimes I have an "irritated tolerance" also. And true believers whether of an islamic, communist, racist, or whatever can do or sanction terrible things BUT that remains an extremist minority. Well, fighter aircraft could have been used to shoot down the airlines. I'm not sure what his avatar means to him. It doesn't upset me. And I've never felt personally condemned by Hangdawg and I personally like him. The christian religion as well as some others does impose a belief on many of its adherents that non believers will go to hell. My sister who goes to the Luthern church believes that.I don't find his philosophical thinking to be bizarre or rantings (unless it's catagorically stipulated that all theology is bizarre rantings say along the lines of Wittgenstein}even though I may disagree. Having a christian background when I was young I have some understanding of what issues he has to consider as he thinks about the world.lfen

Besides, as Contracycle demonstrated over on one of the Israel/Palestine threads you don't have to be religious to believe that terrorism is justified.

Hangdawg,Just as a point of reference the following does not accurately protray my views: While disagreeing with it I understand the judeo christian belief of the individuality of souls. And I know that the nondual is a very slippery concept. There is no "merge back" because there was never a separation. And we can't remain what we never were.One approach is to examine in depth the nature of our experience of being a self. That experience is an illusion. Shankara used the analogy of someone being frightened of a snake only to realize that it was a piece of rope. Where did the snake go? It never went anywhere as there was never a snake, just the mind for a moment holding an illusion of a snake. The snake doesn't merge into the rope. The rope is simply seen as it is without the illusion.The only boundary is the idea that there is a boundary. What boundary could there be?lfen

quote:

---

Besides, as Contracycle demonstrated over on one of the Israel/Palestine threads you don't have to be religious to believe that terrorism is justified.

---

No indeed. But that is at least a clearer and more honest position than calling some violence terrorism, and then doing the same thing and calling it OK. I mean its kinda ironic - in line with Hambre's remarks about HangDawgs avatar - that aerial bombing was the tool of choice in the first half of the last century for dealing with "primitive" populations precisely because it induced such terror.

While many fundies would label you as a new age guru, I see something in that last sentence of yours..The only boundry is the idea of a boundry. Could it be that before the Fall, Adam and Eve had no boundry with God as we now have? Jesus came to show us that in order to find our lives, we must lose them? Just a thought.

Hangdawg alleges:

quote:

---

I'm just stating what I believe the truth to be. More than anything else, I am interested in the truth.

---

However, most people realize that they have to use reason to arrive at the truth. In contrast, you and Phatboy just make it up as you go along, and warn anyone who doesn't agree that there's a price to pay for doubt. What sort of truth-seeking is that?The problem with your comparison of belief in God's Spirit and belief in freedom, women's rights, or hard work is that there's no objective way to define or quantify God's Spirit, is there? Even if freedom or rights are abstract concepts, at least we can come to a consensus about them. With God's Spirit we just have to take your word for it. This is truth?Don't make it sound like you've never talked about the pie-in-the-sky deal you've got coming, or the utter meaninglessness of the lives of atheists. I'm sorry I'm not, uh, receptive enough to the slew of nonsense with which you filled post #31, but I'm past the age where I judge everything emotionally. If you believe that there's life after death or spiritual and soul realities, fine for you, but don't try to accuse us of being closed-minded for pointing out that there doesn't exist a shred of evidence that supports your view. You obviously have a reason for believing it, but rationally you don't have a leg to stand on.My viewpoint is that, since they have the potential for great violence as well, we should find plenty of inspiration in the real capability of humans to be kind, generous, artistic, and heroic. People have the right to expect more out of life instead of waiting for a big payoff after they die. And our imaginations are better used trying to fathom how our universe works and how to improve it, rather than concocting stories to make our ignorance easier to bear.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Hi Phat! I certainly think that is one way to interpret the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What is knowledge? is then the question.In another thread Jar recommended the Gospel of St. Thomas to me. I found it online and it does seem to show a more eastern teaching attributed to Jesus. I know very little about Thomas so I don't know to what extent that gospel reflects the early church and the early teachings.It's my impression that some (many? most?) fundamentalist have major issues with the Catholic church, but I still recommend to almost everyone who shows an interest in this topic Bernadette Roberts' book THE EXPERIENCE OF NO-SELF. It is not a philosophical or theological work. She writes in the tradition of St. John the Divine as a map of inner experiences for contemplatives who might have a use for it. In that book she writes of her personal experience with losing her self. I'll go get the book and type in a quote. Okay the final sentences of her book:"But isn't this what Christ would have us do--to lose our very life (our souls)that we might have eternal life? In new translation this saying turns into: 'He who seeks only himself brings himself to ruin, whereas he who brings himself to naught for me discovers who he is' Mt. 10,39. To this I would add that in coming to nought, he will not only discover who he is, but "what" he is, for in God these can not be separated. THAT he is, WHAT he is, WHO he is, WHERE he is, in God these are all One, and outside this One, nothing is." New Age was a catch all for the explosion of beliefs in the sixties and partly reflects the first contact of westerners with eastern religions, and was an eclectic blend of whatever ingredients someone wanted to include from a loooong shopping list.The nondual teachings are at least as ancient as the Buddha and the roots of that are even older. The other new age stuff I'm interested in is physics, biology, and brain function particularly as they shed light on what and how we experience what we know as reality.I'm not very interested in New Age stuff per se.
Have you read the Gospel of St. Thomas? That might make an interesting thread.lfen

Thank you for your reply. And I appreciate it when people like yourself show me when I am being unreasonable so that I can refine my arguments. So whenever there is a fallacy in some argument of mine feel free to point it out. I'd hardly say we're making up our beliefs as we go along, only the rational arguments to support them. As far as the price to pay for rejecting God, I don't think it is TOO far off what you believe will happen to you anyway after death, but that's another subject. So my search for the truth is wrong and subjective because the truth I believe I have found has negative outcomes for some? How consistent is that with reality? Aren't there negative outcomes for the decisions of many in life already? Why should we not expect the same to hold true after death? What is NOT good is those who seek a "truth" the most comfortable truth to agree with their emotions. My reason tells me that no one can force anyone to love them, even God who is infinitely worthy of it. Love is inherently a choice. If a person doesn't want God, he gets what he wants. The Bible tells me a Holy God will not abide with those who reject him and do not have his Spirit.Of course you are free to reject the premise of my argument: there is a God that desires a relationship with us. In this case we just have to agree to disagree on our worldviews. No, but we can somewhat define and quantify the good or fruit of the spirit which includes wise application of these and other abstract principles listed above. So you agree that we can generally agree on that which is good. And good is an emergent property by whatever means. And of this you can ask the same question of anything else in existence: why? No, you don't have to just take my word for it. "I will show you my faith by my good works." And you can reason it out for yourself... if you accept the things of the Spirit... haha.. (sorry, I know how ambiguous and stupid that last part sounds, but you wouldn't understand unless you understand) I have, but to correct you, I don't believe an atheist's life is meaningless. You do. (and again I must add the qualifier "externally") Is good an emotional quality? You've agreed above that we can generally come to consensus on what is good by our reason so it must not be an emotional quality. We can't really pin it down on purely physical causes, but even if we could, again, that still doesn't answer the question of why. I think it is a spiritual quality. You have no idea why we are in the reality we are experiencing right now. You can't explain why there should be something rather than nothing. You cannot explain why the laws of the universe continue to function or why time marches on. Furthermore, you cannot explain why this life that exists should be wonderful or horrible, or why abstract qualities like good, evil, right, wrong, love, freedom, knowledge, wisdom, consciousness and all things that make this life interesting should fill our lives.You are content to believe there is no reason; I see a reason and purpose for it all. I believe God has created all of this and you do not. Neither one of us can prove logically to anyone's satisfaction that God exists; however, starting with the belief that He does exist, I am trying to rationally extrapolate the consequences of his existence with respect to the reality that also exists. Communist/atheist Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. proves that unbelievers are just as capable of "great violence". Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler did. Just because a person believes in God doesn't mean God's Spirit is in them. "Even the demons believe in God -- and shudder." Good. And where did these qualities come from? And why do they exist? If you think I'm just sitting around waiting for some kind of payoff at death, you are SORELY mistaken and have no understanding of my worldview. My new life is NOW; it doesn't just begin when I die. And that is a great way to use our imaginations, but even if you can know the HOW, you can never know the why, unless you believe God is the reason why. I see nothing wrong with combining our reason and imagination to to answer the perfectly valid question of "why?". Worldviews must answer the question "why?".How does your worldview address that question?